Dismissed

P. Subramanyeswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Nov 2021WP/9179/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a Deputy Director from Vijayawada to Srikakulam. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that transfer is an incident of service and employees have no vested right to specific postings. Absent malafides or violation of rules, the transfer order was not affected by judicial review.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and consequent miscellaneous petitions were closed.

P. Subramanyeswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.9179 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3^rd Respondent in issuing impugned Proc.No.22-2019-2222 dated 10.07.2019 transferring the petitioner from the O/o Commissioner of Industries Viayawada to the O/o General Manager District Industries Centre Srikakulam as highly arbitrary illegal contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.45 Finance (HR-I-PLG & POLICY) Department dated 24.06.2019 and consequently set aside the impugned Proc.No.22-2019-2222 dated 10.07.2019”

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in Industries Department in the year 1989 and later promoted as Assistant Director and Deputy Director in the year 2006 and 2013 respectively.

¶7

While the petitioner was working as Deputy Director in Industries Department, his services were placed at the disposal of the Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Industries Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Hyderabad on deputation. The petitioner reported to duty on 30.12.2015. While working as such, APIIC was shifted from Hyderabad to Vijayawada in the month of May, 2016. The request of APIIC to Industries Department for continuation of petitioner’s services on deputation for one more year was not accepted by the Industries Department. Therefore, the petitioner was relieved from APIIC and joined in his parent department of Industries at Vijayawada vide proceedings No.22-1-2014-15709-1 dated 14.07.2017.

¶8

While the matter stood thus, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 lifting existing ban on

¶9

MSM,J WP_9179_2019

¶10

¶11

transfer of employees. Vide G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 04.07.2017, the Government extended the relaxation of ban on transfers.

¶12

It is contended that, contrary to the guidelines mentioned in the above G.Os, the petitioner was transferred from Vijayawada to Srikakulam vide Proceedings No.22-2019-2222 dated 10.07.2019. The transfer was affected on administrative grounds, but not as general transfer. The other officers who are working as Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors and Industrial Promotion Officers including the sixth respondent are transferred in general transfers and the petitioner was not called for counselling. The petitioner submits that, the fifth respondent is causing hurdles and mental harassment, as such he got issued the present transfer orders and the petitioner was forcibly relieved on 12.07.2019, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is not on administrative grounds, but only by way of punishment without any valid grounds and requested to issue direction as stated above.

¶13

During hearing, Sri M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and submitted that the transfer is totally contrary to the guidelines of transfer policy issued by the Government and thereby, the impugned order is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and requested to issue a direction as stated above.

¶14

Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services opposed the petition on the ground that, transfer of petitioner when he is working in a transferable post is only an incident of service and he cannot

¶15

MSM,J WP_9179_2019

¶16

¶17

claim any right of retention at a particular place and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶18

It is an undisputed fact that this petitioner was transferred from the office of Commissioner of Industries Vijayawada to the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Srikakulam without considering the precarious health condition of the petitioner and disregarding his application, by virtue of the impugned proceedings.

¶19

But, the services of the petitioner is a transferable post from one station to another and the employee cannot resist the same for his retention at a particular place or station or post, in view of the law laid down by various Courts. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions.

¶20

In “B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Others¹ ” and

¶21

“Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar² ”, it is held as under:-

¶22

“It is entirely upon the competent authority to decide, when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have a vested right to be posted at a particular place”.

¶23

In “Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal

¶24

Poshani³ ” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶25

“Transfer of a Government served appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to another is generally a condition of service and the employee has not choice in the matter.”

¶26

1 AIR 1986 SC 1955

¶27

2 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659

¶28

3 1989 AIR 1433

¶29

MSM,J WP_9179_2019

¶30

¶31

Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest

¶32

and efficiency in the public administration”. In “Union of India V.

¶33

H.N. Kirtana⁴ ” , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶34

“Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide.”

¶35

In “State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal⁵ ” , the Apex Court

¶36

held as under:

¶37

“An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order”.

¶38

In view of the settled law laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts, the Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders in ordinary course of events. In the instant case, the petitioner claimed Writ of Mandamus. To claim relief of mandamus, the petitioner must establish that there is an existing legally enforceable right and its infringement or invasion. In the present case, the petitioner is only an employee transferred from one station to other station, thereby the petitioner had no vested right to continue in one seat or station and apart from that the transfer is on administrative grounds not tainted by any malafides or vitiated by any irregularity, as appearing on the record. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish any existing legally enforceable right and its infringement and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to claim Writ of

¶39